NASA/TM—2012-217617 AIAA–2012–783

Active Combustion Control for Aircraft Gas-Turbine

Engines—Experimental Results for an Advanced,
Low-Emissions Combustor Prototype

John C. DeLaat, George Kopasakis, Joseph R. Saus, and Clarence T. Chang

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Changlie Wey
ASRC Aerospace Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio

July 2012
 NASA STI Program . . . in Profile
Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the
advancement of aeronautics and space science. The
NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI)
program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain
this important role.
The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices
of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It collects,
organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates
NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access
to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and
its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports
Server, thus providing one of the largest collections
of aeronautical and space science STI in the world.
Results are published in both non-NASA channels
and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which
includes the following report types:
• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of
completed research or a major significant phase
of research that present the results of NASA
programs and include extensive data or theoretical
analysis. Includes compilations of significant
scientific and technical data and information
deemed to be of continuing reference value.
NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal
professional papers but has less stringent
limitations on manuscript length and extent of
graphic presentations.
• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific
and technical findings that are preliminary or
of specialized interest, e.g., quick release
reports, working papers, and bibliographies that
contain minimal annotation. Does not contain
extensive analysis.
• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and
technical findings by NASA-sponsored
contractors and grantees.
• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected
papers from scientific and technical
conferences, symposia, seminars, or other
meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.
• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,
technical, or historical information from
NASA programs, projects, and missions, often
concerned with subjects having substantial
public interest.
• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. English-
language translations of foreign scientific and
technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.
Specialized services also include creating custom
thesauri, building customized databases, organizing
and publishing research results.
For more information about the NASA STI
program, see the following:
• Access the NASA STI program home page at
http://www.sti.nasa.gov
• E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov
• Fax your question to the NASA STI
Information Desk at 443–757–5803
• Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at
443–757–5802
• Write to:
STI Information Desk
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information
7115 Standard Drive
Hanover, MD 21076–1320
NASA/TM—2012-217617 AIAA–2012–783

Active Combustion Control for Aircraft Gas-Turbine

Engines—Experimental Results for an Advanced,
Low-Emissions Combustor Prototype

John C. DeLaat, George Kopasakis, Joseph R. Saus, and Clarence T. Chang

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Changlie Wey
ASRC Aerospace Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio

Prepared for the

50th Aerospace Sciences Meeting
sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Nashville, Tennessee, January 9–12, 2012

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

July 2012
 Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Daniel Paxson for his invaluable insights concerning the phenomenon of combustion instability.
The authors would also like to thank the staff of Test Cell CE5 at NASA Glenn Research Center for their excellence in conducting
the experimental part of this effort. Finally, the authors thank the NASA Fundamental Aeronautics Supersonics Project and the
Environmentally Responsive Aircraft Project for supporting this work.

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identification
only. Their usage does not constitute an official endorsement,
either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.

This work was sponsored by the Fundamental Aeronautics Program

at the NASA Glenn Research Center.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management.

Available from
NASA Center for Aerospace Information National Technical Information Service
7115 Standard Drive 5301 Shawnee Road
Hanover, MD 21076–1320 Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

 Active Combustion Control for Aircraft Gas-Turbine Engines—
Experimental Results for an Advanced, Low-Emissions
Combustor Prototype
John C. DeLaat, George Kopasakis, Joseph R. Saus, and Clarence T. Chang
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Glenn Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Changlie Wey
ASRC Aerospace Corporation
Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Abstract
Lean combustion concepts for aircraft engine combustors are prone to combustion instabilities.
Mitigation of instabilities is an enabling technology for these low-emissions combustors. NASA Glenn
Research Center’s prior activity has demonstrated active control to suppress a high-frequency combustion
instability in a combustor rig designed to emulate an actual aircraft engine instability experience with a
conventional, rich-front-end combustor. The current effort is developing further understanding of the
problem specifically as applied to future lean-burning, very low-emissions combustors. A prototype
advanced, low-emissions aircraft engine combustor with a combustion instability has been identified and
previous work has characterized the dynamic behavior of that combustor prototype. The combustor
exhibits thermoacoustic instabilities that are related to increasing fuel flow and that potentially prevent
full-power operation. A simplified, non-linear oscillator model and a more physics-based sectored 1-D
dynamic model have been developed to capture the combustor prototype’s instability behavior. Utilizing
these models, the NASA Adaptive Sliding Phasor Average Control (ASPAC) instability control method
has been updated for the low-emissions combustor prototype. Active combustion instability suppression
using the ASPAC control method has been demonstrated experimentally with this combustor prototype in
a NASA combustion test cell operating at engine pressures, temperatures, and flows. A high-frequency
fuel valve was utilized to perturb the combustor fuel flow. Successful instability suppression was shown
using a dynamic pressure sensor in the combustor for controller feedback. Instability control was also
shown with a pressure feedback sensor in the lower temperature region upstream of the combustor. It was
also demonstrated that the controller can prevent the instability from occurring while combustor operation
was transitioning from a stable, low-power condition to a normally unstable high-power condition, thus
enabling the high-power condition.

Nomenclature
ASPAC Adaptive Sliding Phasor Average Control
FAR Fuel/Air Ratio
ṁ Mass flow
P Pressure
P3 Combustor inlet pressure
P3DynA Sensed dynamic combustor inlet pressure, first location
P3DynB Sensed dynamic combustor inlet pressure, second location
P4 Combustor pressure
P4DynUp Sensed dynamic combustor pressure, upstream location
P4DynDn Sensed dynamic combustor pressure, downstream location

NASA/TM—2012-217617 1
T Temperature
T3 Combustor inlet temperature
 Equivalence ratio

Introduction
Future aircraft engines must provide low emissions and high efficiency at low cost while maintaining
the reliability and operability of present day engines. The demands for increased performance and
decreased emissions have resulted in advanced combustor designs that are critically dependent on
efficient fuel/air mixing and lean operation. However, all combustors, but most notably lean-burning
ultra-low-emissions combustors, are susceptible to combustion instabilities. These instabilities are
typically caused by the interaction of the fluctuating heat release of the combustion process with naturally
occurring acoustic resonances (Refs. 1 and 2). If not mitigated, these interactions can produce large, high-
frequency pressure oscillations within the combustor that could reduce component life and potentially
lead to premature mechanical failures.
Combustion instability has been a persistent issue in ground-based gas turbines using premixed
combustors (Refs. 3 and 4) and will become more challenging as aero-engine combustor development
continues to move toward leaner direct injection schemes. Effective suppression of the high-frequency
combustion instabilities which result from the relatively short aero-engine combustor geometries is a
critical enabling technology for lean-burning ultra-low-emission combustors and requires several key
issues to be addressed. Dynamic models play a vital role in understanding the instability phenomenon and
also for developing controls. Sensors and algorithms able to detect and interpret the instability need to be
developed. Actuator devices that can introduce controlled-perturbations into the combustor to affect
change in the instability are needed. And lastly, suitable control algorithms are needed to drive the
actuators to obtain the necessary effect.
In recent years, there has been considerable activity addressing active combustion control.
Government, academia, and industry research efforts, through analysis and the use of laboratory
combustors, have shown the considerable potential for active control (Refs. 5 to 15). At the NASA Glenn
Research Center, the Active Combustion Control Technology activity aims to demonstrate active control
in a realistic environment relevant to aircraft engines by providing experiments tied to aircraft gas turbine
combustors. The intent is to advance the technology maturity of active combustion control toward
eventual demonstration in an engine environment. Previous work at NASA Glenn has shown that active
combustion control utilizing advanced algorithms working through high frequency fuel actuation can
effectively suppress combustion instabilities in a conventional, rich-front-end combustor. The combustor
was developed in conjunction with Pratt & Whitney and United Technologies Research Center and
emulated a conventional aircraft gas turbine engine and its instability behavior (Refs. 16 to 19). For this
effort, a suitable high-frequency fuel modulation device was developed by Georgia Institute of
Technology and employed for modulating the combustor’s main stage fuel injector. A high-temperature
single crystal silicon carbide (SiC) pressure sensor was able to detect the existence of the thermoacoustic
instability in the combustor test rig while operating at 780 °F (420 °C) (Ref. 20). Two combustion
instability control algorithms were each able to demonstrate up to 90 percent suppression of the
combustor instability (Refs. 17 and 18). A dynamic model was utilized to evaluate instability control
methods, and also to gain insights into the instability phenomenon (Ref. 21). It is desired to extend these
active control technologies to advanced ultra-low-emissions combustors such as those employing multi-
point lean direct injection (Ref. 22).
In order to continue to mature the active combustion control technologies, a near term, but technically
advanced low emissions combustor test bed is desired. Emissions testing of an advanced low-emissions
combustor prototype was performed in 2006 in one of the combustion test cells at the NASA Glenn
Research Center. During this testing, combustion instability pressure oscillations were observed. In
addition, the instability pressure oscillations were observed to grow with increasing fuel/air ratio (FAR).
This instability growth prevented the combustor from reaching full power operation. Dynamic data

NASA/TM—2012-217617 2
acquired from that combustor was analyzed in order to characterize the instability behavior of the
combustor. Specifically, trends in instability amplitude versus operating conditions were observed and
documented (Ref. 23). The dynamic characterization identified the combustor prototype as a suitable test
bed for active controls research.
A combustion instability simulation, previously developed at NASA Glenn (Ref. 21), was modified to
capture the specific geometry and operating conditions of the advanced combustor prototype. The
simulation layout embodied the relevant physical features of the combustor and test rig in order to provide
a simulation of the experimentally observed instability behavior. The simulated combustion instability
closely matched that of the combustor for steady fuel flow and also replicated the growth in instability
amplitude as the FAR increased (Ref. 23).
Most recently, in 2010, one of the previously developed instability control methods, the Adaptive
Sliding Phasor Averaged Control (ASPAC) (Ref. 18) was updated for the low-emissions combustor
prototype. Active combustion instability suppression using the ASPAC control method has been
demonstrated experimentally with this combustor prototype in a NASA combustion test cell operating at
engine pressures, temperatures, and flows. Dynamic pressure sensors in the combustor and in the
combustor inlet provided combustor pressure feedback to the controller. A high-frequency fuel valve was
utilized to perturb the combustor fuel flow. Successful instability suppression was shown. It was also
demonstrated that the controller can prevent the instability from occurring while combustor operation was
transitioning from a stable, low-power condition to a normally unstable high-power condition.
This paper provides a description of the combustor rig experimental setup and synopsizes the
experimental dynamic characterization. The sensors and fuel actuator used for active control are then
described. An overview of the instability control method and how it was adapted for the low-emissions
combustor is then given. Data from the experimental demonstration of combustion instability control are
provided and discussed. The paper concludes with a summary of the experimental results and a discussion
of the continuing technical challenges and long range plans for NASA’s efforts in active combustion
control.

Description of the Experimental Hardware and Software

Low-Emissions Combustor Prototype
Several advanced low emissions combustor concepts for aircraft gas turbine engines have been
developed in conjunction with NASA’s industrial partners. Thermoacoustic instability was observed
during emissions testing of one of these advanced combustor prototypes in 2006. This combustor
prototype operates on liquid jet fuel (typically JetA or JP8) and consists of a pilot and main stage. The
pilot operates locally rich and the main stage operates locally lean, however the overall fuel/air ratio
(FAR) is always lean with typical equivalence ratio of  = 0.3 to 0.5 (FAR = 0.02 to 0.034). Here  = 1 is
the stochiometric FAR (for liquid jet fuel,  = 1 is equivalent to FAR = 0.068).
The combustor was installed in a flame tube in test cell CE5 at NASA Glenn (Fig. 1). The combustor
and rig were operated at the range of conditions shown in Table I. The combustor was instrumented with
dynamic pressure transducers at the locations shown in Figure 1. There were two water cooled dynamic
(AC-coupled) pressure transducers upstream of the fuel injector (P3DynA, P3DynB). Downstream of the fuel
injector, two uncooled dynamic pressure transducers (P4DynUp, P4DynDn) were each installed in a purged,
semi-infinite line configuration in order to isolate the transducers from the hot combustion products. The
downstream transducer, P4DynDn, had less background noise and is the one most often used for the
dynamic characterization and feedback control presented in this paper.

NASA/TM—2012-217617 3
 Dynamic pressure transducer, P3DynA Dynamic pressure transducer, P4DynDn

1
1 2
2. .
12.0 3.0
0 0
1 1
2 2

Dynamic pressure transducer, P3DynB Dynamic pressure transducer, P4DynUp

Figure 1.—Advanced low-emissions combustor prototype installed in NASA flame tube. The pilot fuel line is shown in
red and the main stage fuel lines are shown in green. Dimensions shown are in inches. Drawing is not to scale.

TABLE I.—RANGE OF COMBUSTOR

OPERATING CONDITIONS
Inlet pressure (psia) 65 to 250
Inlet temperature, F 400 to 1000
Air flow, lbm/s 0.9 to 4.0
Fuel flow, lbm/hr approx. 100 to approx. 400
Combustor ΔP/P, percent approx 4.0 to 4.5
Fuel/air ratio 0.02 to 0.034

Characterization of Combustion Instability Versus Operating Conditions

During emissions testing with this combustor in 2006, dynamic pressure data were collected and the
dynamic behavior of the combustor characterized (Ref. 23). Observations from this test series showed an
instability that occurred at approximately 530 Hz. This instability was only present when operating on the
main stage of the fuel injector, that is, it was not present for low power, pilot-only operation. Further, the
instability was seen to generally increase in amplitude with increasing FAR. Due to concerns about
damage to the fuel injector as the instability amplitude increased, the combustor was not operated at its
full power FAR. The dynamic pressure data were recorded on a dSPACE Inc. real-time data acquisition
system along with operating condition data. This allowed data to be acquired during instability, and also
during the onset of instability. For all of the analyses shown in this paper, combustor dynamic pressure
data were acquired with a sample time of 5 kHz. For steady fuel flow conditions, 10 sec of data were
typically acquired. The data were processed to obtain a power spectral density (PSD) of the pressure.
The MATLAB (The Mathworks, Inc.) PSD function, which implements Welch’s method, was applied to
the data. A Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) length of 4096 was used and the data were segmented with a
Hanning window of length 4096 and a window overlap of 75 percent of the window size. The spectral
data were scaled to provide spectral amplitude in psi. A plot of the resulting peak value from the spectral
data (the value at the instability frequency) versus FAR is shown in Figure 2. A simple curve-fit has been
added for each set of data points to aid identification of trends in the data. Repeats during later test runs
are included and are shown in Figure 2 as hollow symbols with dashed-line curve fits. The curves are

NASA/TM—2012-217617 4
 1.2
Run 905 - 135psia, 1000degF, 1.84pps, 10/90
Run 905 - 151psia, 1000degF, 2.05pps, 10/90
Run 905 - 151psia, 1000degF, 2.05pps, 20/80

1 Run 901 - 166psia, 1000degF, 2.26pps, 10/90

Combustor Pressure Amplitude at Instability Freq., psi
Run 906 - 166psia, 1000degF, 2.26pps, 10/90
Run 901 - 192psia, 950degF, 2.66pps, 10/90
Run 906 - 192psia, 950degF, 2.66pps, 10/90
Run 901 - 250psia, 1000degF, 3.4pps, 10/90
Suspect Data Point
0.8
Run 905 - 250psia, 1000degF, 3.4pps, 10/90
Run 901 - 250psia, 1000degF, 3.4pps, 20/80
Run 905 - 250psia, 1000degF, 3.4pps, 20/80

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.0220 0.0240 0.0260 0.0280 0.0300 0.0320 0.0340 0.0360
Fuel/Air Ratio

Figure 2.—Combustor pressure peak instability amplitude versus fuel/air ratio for multiple test runs
shows increase in combustion instability amplitude with increasing fuel/air ratio (from Ref. 23).

labeled according to run number, combustor inlet pressure, combustor inlet temperature, combustor
airflow, and pilot/main fuel split percentage. The overall trend of instability peak amplitude increasing
with FAR can be seen in all the data sets. Further details on the dynamic characterization of the
combustor can be found in Reference 23.
Due to the repeatable nature of the exhibited combustion instability across multiple operating
conditions, as well as the ability to size the instability by varying FAR and operating conditions, this lean-
burn combustor prototype was selected as a suitable test bed for the combustion control effort described
later in this paper.

Instability Control Sensors

As mentioned previously, and as shown in Figure 1, four high-frequency pressure sensors were used to
measure thermoacoustic pressure oscillations in the combustor prototype during the 2006 combustor
testing. For the instability control demonstration described in this paper, similar dynamic pressure sensors
were used at similar locations. For the combustor inlet pressure (P3), two dynamic (AC-coupled) pressure
sensors (P3DynA, P3DynB) were located approximately 17 in. (43 cm) upstream of the fuel injector face at
two different circumferential locations. These sensors are PCB Piezotronics type 123Mxx pressure
sensors with 100 psi range. Water cooling is used to keep the sensors below their maximum operating
temperature of 250 F (120 C). For the pressure inside the combustor (P4), two dynamic pressure sensors
(P4DynUp, P4DynDn) were located at approximately 7 in. (18 cm) and 27 in. (68.5 cm) downstream of the fuel
injector face, respectively. These sensors are PCB type 112Axx sensors with 100 psi range. These
sensors are each located approximately 12 in. (30 cm) from the flowpath on a purged, semi-infinite line.
A comparison of how well the sensors at P3 are able to measure combustion instability versus those at P4
is given later in the experimental results section.

NASA/TM—2012-217617 5
 High-Frequency Fuel Actuator
For the open-loop fuel modulation testing and closed-loop instability control testing, a high-frequency
fuel modulation valve developed previously (Refs. 18 and 19) was utilized. The valve is actuated by a rod
comprised of a magnetostrictive material. The fuel valve has an associated control system with a mean
flow control loop that keeps the mean fuel flow constant while the fuel flow is perturbed. The design
application for the valve was to modulate the main stage fuel at up to 1000 Hz. For the previous
combustion control application (Refs. 16 to 18), the combustor main fuel injector Flow Number was
about 110. Flow Number for an orifice is defined as:
m
Flow Number  (1)
P

with ṁ being the fluid mass flow rate in lbm/hr (abbreviated pph) and ∆P being the pressure differential
in psi across the orifice. The resulting units for Flow Number are (pph/psi0.5), though they are rarely
stated.1
It was desired for the current test that the valve modulate the fuel flow through the fuel injector pilot
which carries a smaller portion of the overall fuel flow (typically 10 to 20 percent) through a
correspondingly smaller Flow Number of approximately 8. Using a dynamic flow test rig (Ref. 24), the
fuel valve was dynamically characterized to try to predict how well it would be able to modulate the pilot
fuel. Fuel line lengths and sizes were set in the characterization rig to approximate the lengths and
volumes for the fuel feed system in the combustor rig. The results of the valve dynamic characterization
(Ref. 25) suggested that the fuel valve, operating through the pilot, might not have enough actuator
authority to impact the combustion instability. However, since no appropriately sized valve was available
at the time, it was decided to proceed to combustion testing. As a fallback position, the valve would be
used to modulate the main stage fuel, which for this fuel injector had a Flow Number of approximately
30. The performance of the valve during combustor testing is described in the experimental results section
of this paper.

Control Method Description

The Adaptive Sliding Phasor Averaged Control (ASPAC) algorithm was developed previously and
used to control combustion instability in a conventional, rich-burn combustor. The control algorithm and
previous results are described in detail in Reference 18. As depicted in Figure 3, combustor
thermoacoustic instability is a closed-loop, self-excited process that occurs when combustion excites the
combustor acoustics, and the acoustics feed back into the combustion process with the appropriate phase.
To suppress combustion instability, a controller must interrupt this naturally occurring feedback. The
ASPAC algorithm senses combustor pressure fluctuations, uses a band-pass filter to isolate the instability
frequency, and modulates the fuel valve. The pressure oscillations generated by combustion of the
ASPAC-modulated fuel oppose in phase the pressure oscillations generated by the instability, reducing
the net amplitude of the combustor pressure oscillations. As shown diagrammatically in Figure 4, the
sensed pressure is phase shifted with a phase that slides back and forth inside a restricted control region
that the controller has identified as being favorable to suppression of combustion instability. This phase
shifted pressure is used to generate the command to the fuel valve. The combustor pressure resulting from
heat addition due to the fuel modulation, vectorially adds to the combustor pressure due to the instability
to provide the overall dynamic combustor pressure. The dashed line region (the “effective stability
region”) within the shaded area in Figure 4 is the stable region in which the phase of the fuel modulation

1
The effective flow area of a pressure atomizer such as a fuel injector nozzle is often described in terms of Flow
Number. However, Flow Number is dependent on the fluid density (Ref. 1). For reference, with jet fuel, a Flow
Number of 110 correlates to an effective cross-sectional area of approximately 6.510–3 in.

NASA/TM—2012-217617 6
 Closed‐Loop Self‐Excited System

Fuel‐air
Fuel  Combustor 
Valve
Mixture  Flame
system Acoustics

Natural feedback process

ASPAC Algorithm
Fuel Valve  Combustor 
Command Phase Shift Pressure
Controller Filter

Figure 3.—ASPAC combustion instability control block diagram showing filter and
phase shift controller that are the heart of the ASPAC algorithm.

Figure 4.—ASPAC Phasor diagram depicted in a stationary frame of reference shows

how pressure from properly phased fuel modulation decreases overall combustor
pressure oscillations.

relative to the instability pressure is such that the power of the combustor pressure oscillations is reduced.
The controller phase slides back and forth within the effective control region; starting from one end of its
boundary, marching to the other end and then reversing direction. This continuous dithering of the phase
allows the controller to respond quickly to any changes in phase required to maintain instability
suppression.
The controller command is generated at a 10 KHz rate and the controller calculates and applies a new
phase shift at a rate of 40 Hz. Also, this controller optionally employs discontinuous exponential gain
modulation control. In this control mode the gain toggles on and off with an exponential decay in order to
counteract the effective proportional gain variability produced by the large dead time phase delay of the
plant. In addition, controller parameter adaptation is employed to tune some of the key parameters of the
controller.
For the current effort, the ASPAC controller has been updated to provide active control of combustion
instability in the low-emissions combustor prototype. The controller was modified via the band-pass filter
design, to be more sensitive to the instability frequencies observed in the low-emissions combustor.
Initially, a simple non-linear oscillator model was used to tune and exercise the controller. In order to
conduct more detailed simulation evaluations of instability control methods, and also to gain insights into
the instability phenomenon, the NASA Sectored 1-D combustion instability simulation method was

NASA/TM—2012-217617 7
utilized. The simulation layout embodies the relevant physical features of the combustor and test rig. As
described in Reference 23, modifications were applied to the basic simulation in order to match the
physical layout shown in Figure 1, and capture the experimentally observed instability behavior of the
low emissions combustor prototype as shown in Figure 2. The Sectored 1-D simulation was used in a
limited fashion for evaluation of the controller prior to experimental testing of the controller in the
combustor rig. Further runs with the Sectored 1-D simulation are planned with the results to be compared
to the experimental data described next. However, as will be discussed, the behavior of the combustor rig
changed with time so that the Sectored 1-D simulation, which captured the relatively static behavior of
the rig in the 2006 testing, no longer captured this changing combustor instability behavior. The
discussion of experimental results later in this paper briefly explores options on how to proceed with post-
run simulation evaluations.

Instability Control Experimental Demonstration

The updated ASPAC controller was implemented on a dSPACE Inc. real-time control computer and
operated with the low emissions combustor prototype to experimentally demonstrate combustion
instability control. Experimental testing was conducted in the NASA Glenn Research Center combustor
test cell CE5 from September through November of 2010. There were five research objectives for the
experimental program:

A. Determine if the combustion instability behavior of the low-emissions combustor prototype is

similar to that observed during the 2006 testing;
B. If Objective A yields a suitable operating condition for combustion instability control
investigations, attempt to demonstrate that the ASPAC controller is able to suppress combustion
instabilities in the low-emissions combustor prototype and, as a result, extend the combustor
operating range into previously unstable regions;
C. If Objective B is successful, determine if combustion instability control can be accomplished
using the dynamic pressure at P3 for feedback;
D. Also, if Objective B is successful, determine if combustion instability control can be accomplished
through modulation of the pilot fuel flow; and
E. Obtain dynamic characterization data during the closed-loop, instability control activities in
Objectives B through D to allow construction of a closed-loop version of the Sectored 1-D
combustor simulation that can be used as a benchmark problem for evaluating other combustor
instability control methods and/or other combustion instability simulation methods.

Experimental results addressing each of these research objectives are presented and discussed in the
following sections.

Comparison of Combustion Instability Behavior Versus Prior Testing

As discussed previously, the combustion instability behavior of the low-emissions combustor
prototype as shown in Figure 1 was dynamically characterized to obtain the relationship between
combustion instability and operating conditions such as air temperature, air pressure, and fuel/air ratio.
The results from testing in 2006 are reported in Reference 23 and are summarized in Figure 2. Since
several years and several rig configuration change-outs had occurred, the first set of test runs in 2010
attempted to replicate the 2006 behavior. The expectation was that the combustor would behave similarly.
Sensor P4DynDn was again used to measure instability pressure oscillations. As was seen in 2006, the
instability was only present when operating on the main stage of the fuel injector, that is, it was not
present for low power, pilot-only operation. Comparisons were then run for combined pilot/main

NASA/TM—2012-217617 8
 0.7

Run 901 ‐ 7/26/2006
Combustor Pressure Amplitude at Instability Freq., psi

0.6
Run 906 ‐ 9/12/2006
Run 1007 ‐ 9/1/2010
0.5
Run 1008 ‐ 9/2/2010
Run 1014 ‐ 11/4/2010
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0.022 0.024 0.026 0.028 0.03 0.032 0.034 0.036
Fuel/Air Ratio
Figure 5.—Combustion instability pressure peak amplitude versus FAR for a single representative operating
condition shows decreasing instability amplitude versus time in 2010 as compared to 2006 instability behavior.
The data shown is for P3 = 192 psia, T3 = 950 F, ṁair =2.66 lbm/s, 10/90 fuel split (Pilot/Main).

operation. Figure 5 shows, for one of the operating conditions shown in Figure 2, the 2006 instability
behavior versus FAR compared to the same operating condition during the 2010 runs. As can be seen in
the figure, during the first 2010 run, the instability behavior (amplitude vs FAR) seemed similar to that
observed in 2006. However, as also seen in Figure 5, after the first run, the instability amplitude
decreased from run to run. Eventually the combustor was essentially quiet and there was no increase in
instability amplitude with increasing FAR. Similar behavior (that is, a decrease in susceptibility to
instability) was observed for all other operating conditions as well. It was found that to obtain instability
pressure oscillations of sufficient amplitude to conduct the combustion instability control experiments
described next, it was necessary to operate the combustor off-design. For example, decreasing the
combustor ΔP/P for the same FAR was found to increase the instability amplitude. The resulting actual
conditions used for combustion control testing will be described in the next section.
A definitive cause for the continual decrease in susceptibility to instability was not identified during
the testing. It was suspected that the fuel injector might be accumulating some damage that was changing
how the fuel and air were delivered to the combustor. However, examination of the fuel injector hardware
between runs showed no obvious physical changes. Near the end of the test cell entry, it was noticed in
the test data that the main stage fuel injector Flow Number had been decreasing steadily over the weeks of
testing (Fig. 6). It was suspected that this may have been due to coking. Between two of the runs,
detergent was run through the fuel injector and the Flow Number partially (but only temporarily)
recovered, as did the instability amplitudes. It was hypothesized, but not verified, that the change in fuel
injector Flow Number may have changed how the fuel was delivered to the flame, thus impacting the
instability mechanism. Since the attempted fix was only partial, and temporary, it remained necessary to
run the fuel injector off-design to get sufficient instability amplitudes for controls testing.

NASA/TM—2012-217617 9
 1.02

Normalized Main  Injector Flow Number
0.98
Injector Flushed w/ Detergent
0.96

0.94

0.92

0.9

0.88

0.86

0.84

Testing Date
Figure 6.—Main fuel injector average flow number from each test date, normalized to
initial flow number, shows flow number decreasing over time. Flow number partially
recovered when the fuel injector was flushed with detergent to remove possible coking.

Demonstration of Combustion Instability Control

From the testing described in the previous section, the operating condition P3 = 166 psia, T3 =
1000 F, with pilot/main fuel split percentage of 10/90 was chosen for instability control investigations.
Depending on the FAR and combustor ΔP/P chosen, this point exhibited an instability with peak pressure
amplitude of between 0.5 and 1.0 psi peak amplitude (1 to 2 psi peak-to-peak) at approximately 620 Hz.
Figure 7 shows the amplitude spectra and time history plot of the combustor dynamic pressure, P4DynDn,
for a FAR of 0.037 and combustor ΔP/P of 3 percent. The pressure oscillations can clearly be seen in the
amplitude spectra as well as in the time history. There is also a small harmonic response. The 620 Hz
instability frequency observed here is higher than the 530 Hz instability observed in the 2006 testing. This
is believed to be due to the higher FAR required to elicit the instability producing a higher temperature
and thus a higher speed of sound in the combustor.
The high-frequency fuel modulation valve was installed in the main stage fuel injector supply line as
close to the fuel injector as the rig installation would allow (about where the word “Fuel” is shown on
Fig. 1). This was about 3 in. from the rig pressure vessel. However, due to stress relief bends in the fuel
line inside the pressure vessel, there was still approximately 32 in. from the fuel valve to the fuel injector
tip. Open-loop, sinusoidal valve command variations were provided to the valve to observe the response
of combustor pressure to main stage fuel injector perturbations. The commanded frequency and voltage
level to the valve were varied and combustor pressure P4DynDn monitored. The limits on valve command
voltage were set to values found in prior testing (Ref. 25) to provide maximum linear valve travel without
valve overheating. Fixed frequency and sweep frequency perturbations from 100 to 1500 Hz were
commanded to the valve. Representative results are shown in Figure 8. Shown are the valve commanded
voltage and the combustor dynamic pressure for commanded frequencies of 500 and 800 Hz. Along with
the instability pressure oscillations (as shown previously in Fig. 7), the response to the fuel modulations
(and a small harmonic response) can also be seen in the combustor pressure.

NASA/TM—2012-217617 10
 Instability peak at 620 Hz
0.8 2

0.7 1.5

psi
0.6

Pressure, psi
1

CombustorPressure,
0.5
0.5

psi
0.4

psi
0
Combustor

0.3

-0.5
0.2

0.1 -1

0 -1.5
10
1
10
2 3
10 1 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04
Frequency, Hz Time, sec

Figure 7.—Amplitude spectra and time history plot of combustor dynamic

pressure showing the combustion instability at 620 Hz for operating
conditions P3 = 166 psia, T3 = 1000 F, FAR = 0.037 and combustor
∆P/P = 3 percent.

0.7 2 0.7 1

0.6 1.5 0.6

0.5
Co m b u sto r P ressu re, p si
C o m b u sto r P ressu re, p si

0.5 1 0.5

0.4 0.5 0
0.4

p si
p si

0.3 0 0.3
-0.5

0.2 -0.5 0.2

-1
0.1 -1 0.1

0 -1.5 0 -1.5
Combustor Combustor
Pressure Pressure
Response to Fuel Response to Fuel
Modulation Modulation
4 4 3.5 4

3.5 3 3 3
A ), V o lts

A), V o lts
m an d (RE FVolts

3 2 2
Volts

2.5
m m an d (R E F

2.5 1 1
Co mCommand,
C oCommand,

2
V o lts

V o lts

2 0 0
1.5
1.5 -1 -1
Valve

1
Valve

1 -2 -2
V alve

V alve

0.5 -3 0.5 -3

0 -4 0 -4
1 2 3 1 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1 2 3 1 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency, Hz Time, sec Frequency, Hz Time, sec

a) 500 Hz b) 800 Hz

Figure 8.—Combustor dynamic pressure (P4DynDn) shows both the combustion instability and the response to open
loop fuel perturbations commanded to the valve at two different frequencies.

NASA/TM—2012-217617 11
 While the amplitude of the response to fuel modulation appears small relative to the amplitude of the
instability, it was observed during testing that at certain frequencies, especially those close to the
instability frequency (e.g., within 25 Hz), the instability amplitude would get smaller. Also, for
frequencies very close to the instability (e.g., within 10 Hz), the instability frequency would shift to that
of the fuel modulation frequency. Both of these effects indicate that the fuel modulation is affecting the
instability and will thus be able to impact the instability via closed-loop control. It was thus concluded
that fuel modulation via the main stage injector had sufficient authority to proceed to closed-loop testing.
With the instability behavior just described present in the combustor, the ASPAC controller was
turned on, allowing it to command the fuel valve. The sensor P4DynDn was used as the controller feedback.
Initially, the gain for the controller was manually set to zero, which commanded zero voltage
perturbations to the valve. The gain was then slowly increased until good instability suppression was
observed and then until the commanded voltage to the valve approached its limits. This was done to give
the controller the maximum available actuator authority. However, it was found that increasing the gain
beyond a certain value caused the instability suppression to be erratic. This is expected as a result of the
large time delays and noise in the system. As the instability gets sufficiently small compared to the
system noise, the noise will randomize the phase of the pressure oscillations. A large gain will then tend
to excite the instability during those times when the ASPAC algorithm is going through larger-than-usual
phase adaptations (i.e., when the phase is not completely correct for suppression).
Some manual and automated tuning of the controller’s parameters (e.g., gain, filter pass-band, phase
adaptation limits, instability growth allowed before large scale phase adaption kicks in, etc.) was then done
to obtain the best instability suppression as determined from real-time spectral analysis of the combustor
pressure. Figure 9 shows a combustion instability control result using P4DynDn as feedback and modulating
fuel through the main stage injector. As shown in the spectral plots on the left, when the controller is on, the
0.9 2

0.8 1.5

0.7
Combustor Pressure, psi

1
0.6
0.5
0.5
psi

0
0.4
-0.5
0.3
-1
0.2

0.1 -1.5

0 -2
10
1
10
2
10
3 1 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04
Frequency, Hz Time, sec
a) Without control
0.9 2

0.8 1.5

0.7
1
Combustor Pressure, psi

0.6
0.5
0.5
psi

0
0.4
-0.5
0.3
-1
0.2

0.1 -1.5

0 -2
10
1
10
2
10
3 1 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04
Frequency, Hz Time, sec

b) With control
Figure 9.—Combustor pressure amplitude spectrum (left) and time
history (right) shows the combustion thermoacoustic instability
being suppressed by the application of closed-loop control. For
this data, P4DynDn was used as controller feedback, and the fuel
valve was modulating fuel through the main stage fuel injector.

NASA/TM—2012-217617 12
amplitude of the pressure oscillations at the instability frequency is reduced by nearly 95 percent from its
uncontrolled value (from 0.84 to 0.05 psi). The time history plot on the right shows a decrease in the peak-
to-peak pressure oscillations from about 2.5 psi to about 1 psi. A second oscillatory mode around 500 Hz
was sometimes observed in the combustor pressure. This resonance can be seen in the left plots in Figure 9.
Since the controller was not designed to address this other resonance, this sometimes limited the amount the
time history of the pressure oscillations (as shown in the right side of Fig. 9) could be reduced.
A useful result would be to quantify how much fuel mass flow modulation is required to accomplish
this instability suppression. However, there are no dynamic mass flow measuring devices in the fuel lines
for this combustor rig, so the flow modulation must be estimated from the fuel injector ΔP. Further, since
no dynamic ΔP measurement across the fuel injector is available, the fuel injector ΔP is also estimated
from the modulation valve exit pressure minus the time average P4. The result is a very rough estimate of
the size of the fuel modulations entering the combustor. The following example is for the case shown in
Figure 9. First, Equation (1) is used to calculate the main injector Flow Number. Using the time-average
value for valve exit pressure of 210 psia, for P4 of 150 psia, and for fuel flow of 220 lbm/hr, the main
injector Flow Number is found to be 28. This is consistent with the expected value stated earlier in the
paper. Next, the fuel mass flow modulation is estimated from the fuel injector ΔP and Flow Number by
inverting Equation (1). From valve exit pressure modulations of approximately 20 psi about the mean,
the fuel mass flow modulations required for instability suppression are estimated to be around 35 lbm/hr
or approximately 8 percent of the mean fuel flow.
While it is interesting to know if the controller is able to suppress an instability that is already
occurring, the more desirable controller action would be to prevent the instability before it has a chance to
get large enough to be of concern. To test the ability of the ASPAC controller to prevent a combustion
instability from developing, a fuel/air ratio transient was commanded by the facility operators to transition
the combustor from a region of stable operation to a region of unstable operation (the facility controls the
overall fuel and air through the combustor). This FAR transient, without the ASPAC controller active, is
shown in the left part of Figure 10. Shown are the fuel modulation valve command (inactive in this case),
the combustor dynamic pressure, and the FAR. The combustor pressure has been band-pass filtered about
the instability frequency (the filter pass-band is about 100Hz around a center frequency of 620 Hz) in
order to deemphasize noise and accentuate the pressure oscillations due to the instability.
As can be seen, with no control, the instability develops and the pressure oscillations due to the
instability grow to approximately the levels shown in Figure 9. However, as shown in the right side of
Figure 10, with the ASPAC controller active, repeating the same FAR transient shows no increase in
pressure oscillations. Interestingly, the valve command shows very little increase in activity when the
instability would be developing due to the fact that the controller is already monitoring combustor
pressure and modulating the fuel valve to minimize the energy in the combustor pressure. These two FAR
transients (with and without the controller active) show that the ASPAC controller is able to prevent the
growth of instability before it can reach an unacceptable level. As discussed earlier, since the instability
amplitude for the combustor grows with increasing FAR, in order to achieve higher power operation, the
instability growth must be reduced or eliminated. The results shown here, then, are highly encouraging.
They show that, with combustion instability control, the combustor can operate in regions that had
previously been avoided due to instability, thus enabling an expanded operating range for the combustor.
Another experiment was conducted to observe how quickly the ASPAC controller is able to suppress
an instability when the controller is switched on. This is of interest because, in contrast to the previous
test, it would be operationally desirable to only have the controller active when an instability is starting to
develop. This would decrease the activity of the high-frequency valve and extend its life. The left side of
Figure 11 shows the ASPAC controller being turned on in the presence of an already developed
instability. This would be the worst case, since, as was already discussed, it would normally be
undesirable to let the instability become fully developed. As seen in the figure, after the controller is
switched on at a little after 4 sec, the controller starts modulating the fuel valve command (the top plot)
and is able to start impacting the instability pressure oscillations (the bottom plot) almost immediately.

NASA/TM—2012-217617 13
 5 5

Valve Command, Volts

Valve Command, Volts

0 0

-5 -5

2 2

Combustor Pressure, psi

Combustor Pressure, psi

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

0.045 0.045
Fuel/Air Ratio

Fuel/Air Ratio
0.04 0.04

0.035 0.035

0.03 0.03
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time, sec Time, sec

a) Without ASPAC control b) With ASPAC control active

Figure 10.—Growth of the combustion thermoacoustic instability is prevented by the application of the ASPAC
closed-loop control during an increase in fuel/air ratio. Shown (bottom to top) are combustor rig experimental
data for the fuel/air ratio, combustor pressure, and modulation valve command voltage.
5 5
Valve Command, Volts

Valve Command, Volts

0 0

-5 -5

2 2
Combustor Pressure, psi

Combustor Pressure, psi

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time, sec Time, sec

a) ASPAC controller switched on at ~4 sec b) ASPAC controller turned off at ~4 sec

Figure 11.—Time history of the fuel modulation valve command and the combustor pressure shows the time
required for the ASPAC controller to suppress an already developed instability; and time required for an
instability to re-develop when the ASPAC controller is switched from on to off.

NASA/TM—2012-217617 14
However, this early suppression is of poor quality in that it allows the instability to re-grow while the
controller narrows the region of phase shifting required for suppression. The abilities of the controller
early on are also limited due to the fuel valve saturating and not providing as much authority as the
controller is requesting. As the controller converges on the optimum phase shift region, the quality of the
suppression improves until the suppression is able to be maintained. The right side of Figure 11 shows
that if the controller is turned off again, the instability quickly re-develops. These results show that the
relative time for the instability to fully develop is shorter than the time the controller takes (from an
entirely off state) to suppress this fully developed instability. This reinforces the importance of the
previous results whereby the instability is prevented from developing. This also points to a desired mode
of operation where the controller monitors the combustor pressure continually (or at least in the vicinity
of conditions known to be prone to instability). The controller could then “get a head start” on instability
suppression by observing the instability as it is starting to develop. This mode of controller activation was
not able to be tested during this test cell entry, but is considered to be a highly desirable feature for future
implementations of the ASPAC controller.

Combustion Instability Control With P3 Dynamic Pressure as Feedback

The typical temperature just upstream of the combustor (T3  1300 F) is considerably less harsh than
the typical temperature inside the combustor (T4 > 3000 F). Thus it is highly desirable to be able to
utilize a pressure sensor at P3 for controller feedback rather than one at P4. Since pressure sensor
technology is moving in the direction of pressure sensors that can operate at temperatures in excess of
1000 F, being able to use P3 for feedback instead of P4 would enhance the technical viability of
combustion instability control. To investigate the use of P3 dynamic pressure for controller feedback, the
measured dynamic pressure at P3 (P3DynA) was compared to the dynamic pressure at P4 (P4DynDn) (see
Fig. 1 for the locations of these sensors). Figure 12 shows a comparison of the measured values for these
two pressure sensors for the combustion instability condition shown previously in Figure 7. As can be
seen, the pressure oscillations upstream of the combustor at P3 are about one-third the size of those inside
the combustion at P4. However, the same spectral information about the instability is present. A similar
relationship between P3 and P4 was seen at multiple operating conditions. An additional item of interest
seen in Figure 12 is that the relative phase of sensed P3 and P4 (recorded at the exact same time) are not
the same. This phase difference points to the assumed mode shape of the combustion instability of
roughly a half-wave with a node in the vicinity of the fuel injector. Since the ASPAC controller sets a
relative phase based on observed instability suppression, the phase difference between P3 and P4 should
not negatively impact the controller. Based on these results, it was decided to attempt to repeat some of
the earlier shown results, but instead using P3 as the feedback sensor to the ASPAC controller.
Figure 13 shows a combustion instability control result using P3DynA as feedback and modulating fuel
through the main stage injector. For consistency with the presentation of earlier results, P4DynDn is shown
as the “instability pressure” even though P3DynA was used as the controller feedback. As shown in the
spectral plots on the left, when the controller is on, the amplitude of the pressure oscillations at the
instability frequency is reduced by roughly 85 percent (from 0.43 to 0.06 psi) from its uncontrolled value.
The time history plot on the right shows a decrease in the peak-to-peak pressure oscillations from about
2.0 psi to about 0.8 psi. Note that the uncontrolled peak pressure here is smaller than in results shown
earlier due to the continued decrease in instability amplitude versus time discussed earlier. This was
considered to be a promising demonstration of the feasibility of using P3 for controller feedback.
However, it should be noted that how well the pressure oscillations at P3 represent the instability pressure
oscillations inside the combustor, and thus these results, may be configuration dependent. Further
investigations with other configurations are planned.

NASA/TM—2012-217617 15
 0.8 2

0.6 1

P3DynA_psi

psi
0.4 0

0.2 -1

0 -2

0.8 2

0.6 1
P4DynDn_psi

psi
0.4 0

0.2 -1

0 -2
10
1
10
2
10
3 1 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04
Frequency, Hz Time, sec

Figure 12.—Comparison of the measured pressure oscillations upstream of the

combustor (P3DynA) and inside the combustor (P4DynDn) shows that the combustion
instability pressure oscillations can be sensed in the lower temperature
environment upstream of the combustor.

0.5 1.5

1
0.4
Combustor Pressure, psi

0.5
0.3
psi

0
0.2
-0.5

0.1
-1

0 -1.5
10
1
10
2
10
3 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Frequency, Hz Time, sec
a) Without control

0.5 1.5

1
0.4
Combustor Pressure, psi

0.5
0.3
psi

0
0.2
-0.5

0.1
-1

0 -1.5
10
1
10
2
10
3 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Frequency, Hz Time, sec

b) With control
Figure 13.—Combustor pressure amplitude spectrum (left) and time
history (right) shows the combustion thermoacoustic instability
being suppressed by the application of closed-loop control using
combustor inlet pressure, P3DynA, as controller feedback.

NASA/TM—2012-217617 16
 Combustion Instability Control Using Pilot Fuel Injector Modulation
The high-frequency fuel valve was also installed in the combustor pilot fuel line, which typically
carries 10 to 20 percent of the overall combustor fuel flow. The valve installation was very similar to that
for the main stage fuel injector. There was slightly less fuel line length, approximately 25 in., between the
fuel valve and the fuel injector tip than with the main stage injector. Open-loop, sinusoidal valve
command variations were again provided to the valve to observe the response of combustor pressure to
the pilot fuel injector perturbations. As with the main stage fuel injector, the commanded frequency and
voltage level to the valve were varied and combustor pressure P4DynDn monitored. Fixed frequency and
sweep frequency perturbations of the valve showed very little response in the combustor pressure. Unlike
with the main stage fuel injector modulations, no response was seen in the spectral data at the perturbation
frequency. Further, there was no apparent interaction with the instability at frequencies near the instability
frequency. There was also very little response in the valve exit pressure to the valve perturbations, further
indicating small, if any, fuel flow perturbations into the combustor. This essentially validated the
suspicions from dynamic characterization testing of the valve prior to combustion testing that the valve,
designed for large Flow Number applications, would have difficulty modulating the flow through a small,
pilot fuel injector (Ref. 25). It’s possible that even large pilot fuel modulations would be ineffective at
instability suppression, although this scenario could not be investigated. Several optimizations of the fuel
feed line and valve configuration were attempted with little improvement in the response. None-the-less,
it was decided to attempt closed-loop control with the ASPAC controller modulating the pilot fuel.
Unfortunately, as described earlier, the combustor instability behavior continued to become harder to
elicit, and the FAR required to get an instability to occur exceeded the safe operational limits of the
facility. This combined with schedule pressure from other users of the facility ended this combustion
control test cell entry and thus prevented further investigation of combustion instability control using pilot
fuel modulation. This remains an important future objective.

Closed-Loop Combustor Data for Development of Combustion Control Simulations

The last research objective was to obtain sufficient combustion instability control data to allow
extension of the previously described combustion instability simulation to include closed-loop control.
Unfortunately, as described earlier, the instability behavior of the combustor was changing from run to
run. As a result, closed-loop instability control results were only obtained at a single operating condition.
Further, for this condition, the combustor was being operated differently than in the 2006 testing. Most
notably, the FAR was higher and the injector ΔP/P lower than in any previous testing. Even without
control applied, this requires some investigation on how the Sectored 1-D simulation of the combustion
instability described in Reference 23 can be updated to capture this new behavior. When/if the simulation
is suitably updated to capture the uncontrolled combustor instability behavior, the next effort would be to
incorporate the ASPAC controller and try to match the controlled behavior. This is the subject of ongoing
work and is not reported on further in this paper.

Concluding Remarks
Lean combustion concepts for aircraft engine combustors are prone to combustion instabilities.
Mitigation of instabilities is an enabling technology for these low-emissions combustors. Active control
of combustion instability has been demonstrated on a prototype low-emissions aircraft engine combustor
installed in the NASA Glenn CE-5 flametube rig. Dynamic pressure sensors provided the feedback signal
for control. A high-frequency fuel modulation valve perturbed the fuel into the combustor. The NASA
GRC-developed Adaptive Sliding Phasor Averaged Control (ASPAC) algorithm, utilizing a high-
frequency fuel modulation valve, was able to detect and suppress a thermoacoustic combustion instability
occurring in the prototype combustor. The ASPAC algorithm determines the frequency at which the
instability occurs and modulates the fuel at a phase that interferes with the instability. The phase is

NASA/TM—2012-217617 17
constantly adapted in order to maintain control as conditions in the combustor change. It was also
demonstrated that the controller can prevent the instability from occurring while combustor operation was
transitioning from a stable to a normally unstable, high-power condition, thus enabling the high-power
operation. A pressure sensor inside the combustor was initially used for feedback. A pressure sensor in
the less-harsh environment upstream of the combustor was also able to sense combustion instability
inside the combustor and was successfully used as a feedback sensor for the controller. Successful
instability control was demonstration with the controller modulating the fuel to the combustor’s main
stage fuel injector. Testing to demonstrate instability control with the controller modulating the fuel to the
combustor’s pilot fuel injector was investigated, but was unsuccessful due to inadequate fuel modulation
strength. Future plans are to extend an existing simulation of the uncontrolled combustion instability to
include the controlled case. Future work is also planned to develop fuel actuators sized for pilot injectors
and to apply combustion instability control technologies via pilot fuel modulation to increasingly
advanced lean-burn combustors.

References
1. Lefebvre, A.H.: “Gas Turbine Combustion,” 2nd edition, Taylor & Francis, 1999.
2. Zinn, B.T.; and Lieuwen, T.C.: “Combustion Instabilities: Basic Concepts,” Combustion Instabilities
in Gas Turbine Engines: Operational Experience, Fundamental Mechanisms, and Modeling, edited
by T. Lieuwen and V. Yang, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2005,
Chap 1, pp. 3-26.
3. Mongia, H.; Held, T.; Hsiao, G; Pandalai, R.: “Challenges and Progress in Controlling Dynamics in
Gas Turbine Combustors,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 19, No. 5, p. 822-829, September-
October 2003.
4. Lieuwen, T.C., and Yang, V., Combustion Instabilities in Gas Turbine Engines: Operational
Experience, Fundamental Mechanisms, and Modeling, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics,
AIAA, Reston, VA, 2005, Chaps. 2-8.
5. Schadow, K.; Yang, V., Culick, F.; Rosfjord, T.; Sturgess, G.; Zinn, B.: “Active Combustion Control
for Propulsion Systems,” AGARD Report 820, September 1997.
6. Zinn, B.T.; Neumeier, Y.: “An Overview of Active Control of Combustion Instabilities,” AIAA Paper
97-0461, January 1997.
7. McManus, K.R.; Magill, J.C.; Miller, M.F.; Allen, M.G.: “Closed-Loop System for Stability Control
in Gas Turbine Combustors,” AIAA Paper 97-0463, January 1997.
8. Annaswamy, A.M.; El Rifai, O.M.; Fleifil, M.; Hathout, J.P.; Ghoniem, A.F.: “A Model-based
Self-tuning Controller for Thermoacoustic Instability,” in Combustion Science and Tech., Vol. 135,
pp. 213-240, 1998.
9. Hibshman, J.R.; Cohen, J.M.; Banaszuk, A.; Anderson, T.J.; Alholm, H.A.: “Active Control of
Combustion Instability in a Liquid-Fueled Sector Combustor,” International Gas Turbine &
Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition, June 1999. ASME Paper 99-GT-215.
10. Allgood, D.; Campos-Delgado, D.U.; Acharya, S.; and Zhoo, K.: “Acoustic Control of
Thermoacoustic Instabilities Using Experimental Model-Based Controllers,” Proceedings of ASME
Turbo Expo, New Orleans, LA, 2001.
11. Johnson, C.E.; Neumeier, Y.; Nuemaier, M.; Zinn, B.T.: “Demonstration of Active Control of
Combustion Instabilities on a Full-Scale Gas Turbine Combustor,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo
Expo, New Orleans, LA, 2001.
12. Kiel, B.: “Review of Advances in Combustion Control, Actuation, Sensing, Modeling and Related
Technologies for Air Breathing Gas Turbines,” 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno
NV, AIAA-2001-0481, January 2001.
13. Barooah, P.; Anderson, T.J.; and Cohen, J.M.: “Active Combustion Instability Control with Spinning
Valve Actuator,” ASME Turbo Expo 2002, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ASME Paper GT-2002-
30042, June 2002.

NASA/TM—2012-217617 18
14. Park, S.; Ghosh, A.; Diao, Q.; and Ye, K.H.: “Optimizing Combustion Instability Suppression Using
Secondary Fuel Injection,” 47th Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, San Diego, CA, AIAA-2011-
5627, August, 2011.
15. Goeke, J.L., and Overman, N.T.: “Active Combustion Control System Rig Testing,” 46th Joint
Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Nashville, TN, AIAA-2010-6865, July 2010.
16. DeLaat, J.C.; Chang, C.T.: “Active Control of High Frequency Combustion Instability in Aircraft
Gas-Turbine Engines,” 16th International Symposium on Airbreathing Engines, Cleveland, OH,
ISABE-2003-1054, NASA/TM—2003-212611, September 2003.
17. Le, D.K.; DeLaat, J.C.; Chang, C.T.; Vrnak, D.R.: “Model-Based Self-Tuning Multiscale Method for
Combustion Control,” 41st Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Tucson, Arizona, AIAA-2005-
3593, July 2005.
18. Kopasakis, G.; DeLaat, J.C.; Chang, C.T.: “Adaptive Instability Suppression Controls Method For
Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Combustors,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 25, No. 3, May–
June 2009, pp. 618-627.
19. Cohen, J.M.; Proscia, W; and DeLaat, J.C.: “Characterization and Control of Aeroengine Combustion
Instability: Pratt & Whitney and NASA Experience,” Combustion Instabilities in Gas Turbine
Engines, Operational Experience, Fundamental Mechanisms, and Modeling, Progress in Astronautics
and Aeronautics series, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2005, Chap 6, p. 113-145.
20. Okojie, R.S.; DeLaat, J.C.; Saus, J.R.: “SiC Pressure Sensor for Detection of Combustor
Thermoacoustic Instabilities,” Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Solid-State
Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems, Seoul, Korea, Volume 1, p. 470-473, June 2005.
21. Paxson, D.: “A Sectored-One-Dimensional Model for Simulating Combustion Instabilities in Premix
Combustors,” 38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit. AIAA-2000-0313, NASA TM-1999-
209771, January 2000.
22. Tacina, R.; Wey, C.; Laing, P.; Mansour, A.: “A Low NOx Lean-Direct Injection, Multipoint
Integrated Module Combustor Concept for Advanced Aircraft Gas Turbines,” NASA/TM—2002-
211347, April 2002.
23. DeLaat, J.C.; Paxson, D.E.: “Characterization and Simulation of the Thermoacoustic Instability
Behavior of an Advanced, Low Emissions Combustor Prototype,” 44th Joint Propulsion Conference
and Exhibit, Hartford, Connecticut, AIAA-2008-4878, NASA/TM—2008-215291, July 2008.
24. Saus, J.R.; Chang, C.T.; DeLaat, J.C.; Vrnak, D.R.: “Design and Implementation of a Characterization
Test Rig for Evaluating High Bandwidth Liquid Fuel Flow Modulators,” Presented at the 45th Joint
Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Denver, CO, AIAA-2009-4886, NASA/TM—2010-216105,
August 2009.
25. Saus, J.R.; Chang, C.T.; DeLaat, J.C.; and Vrnak, D.R.: “Performance Evaluation of a High Bandwidth
Liquid Fuel Modulation Valve for Active Combustion Control,” 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, Nashville, TN, AIAA-2012-1274, January 2012 .

NASA/TM—2012-217617 19
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.
Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB
control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
01-07-2012 Technical Memorandum
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Active Combustion Control for Aircraft Gas-Turbine Engines-Experimental Results for an
Advanced, Low-Emissions Combustor Prototype
5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

DeLaat, John, C.; Kopasakis, George; Saus, Joseph, R.; Chang, Clarence, T.; Wey, Changlie
5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 984754.02.07.03.19.04
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
National Aeronautics and Space Administration REPORT NUMBER
John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field E-18205
Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

National Aeronautics and Space Administration ACRONYM(S)
Washington, DC 20546-0001 NASA
11. SPONSORING/MONITORING
REPORT NUMBER
NASA/TM-2012-217617
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Unclassified-Unlimited
Subject Category: 07
Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov
This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT
Lean combustion concepts for aircraft engine combustors are prone to combustion instabilities. Mitigation of instabilities is an enabling technology for these low-emissions
combustors. NASA Glenn Research Center’s prior activity has demonstrated active control to suppress a high-frequency combustion instability in a combustor rig designed to
emulate an actual aircraft engine instability experience with a conventional, rich-front-end combustor. The current effort is developing further understanding of the problem
specifically as applied to future lean-burning, very low-emissions combustors. A prototype advanced, low-emissions aircraft engine combustor with a combustion instability
has been identified and previous work has characterized the dynamic behavior of that combustor prototype. The combustor exhibits thermoacoustic instabilities that are related
to increasing fuel flow and that potentially prevent full-power operation. A simplified, non-linear oscillator model and a more physics-based sectored 1-D dynamic model have
been developed to capture the combustor prototype’s instability behavior. Utilizing these models, the NASA Adaptive Sliding Phasor Average Control (ASPAC) instability
control method has been updated for the low-emissions combustor prototype. Active combustion instability suppression using the ASPAC control method has been
demonstrated experimentally with this combustor prototype in a NASA combustion test cell operating at engine pressures, temperatures, and flows. A high-frequency fuel
valve was utilized to perturb the combustor fuel flow. Successful instability suppression was shown using a dynamic pressure sensor in the combustor for controller feedback.
Instability control was also shown with a pressure feedback sensor in the lower temperature region upstream of the combustor. It was also demonstrated that the controller can
prevent the instability from occurring while combustor operation was transitioning from a stable, low-power condition to a normally unstable high-power condition, thus
enabling the high-power condition.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Aircraft engines; Combustion stability; Combustion control; Engine control

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
ABSTRACT OF STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov)
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGES 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)
U U PAGE UU 25 443-757-5802
U
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18